Posted on 03/18/2024 10:18:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
An illegal immigrant was wrongly banned from possessing guns, according to a recent ruling.
A federal law, Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, bars illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition. Prosecutors charged Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, the illegal alien, in 2020 after he was found in Chicago carrying a semi-automatic pistol despite “knowing he was an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States.”
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected two motions to dismiss, but the third motion, based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, triggered the dismissal of the case on March 8.
“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Coleman, appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her 8-page ruling.
“Thus, the court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”
Lawyers for Mr. Carbajal-Flores had argued in the most recent motion to dismiss that the government could not show that the law in question was “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
In 2022, the Supreme Court determined that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment “presumptively protects” conduct that is covered by the amendment’s “plain text.”
To justify regulations, governments must show that each regulation “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the high court said at the time. “Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command,’” it said.
“Lifetime disarmament of an individual based on alienage or nationality alone does not have roots in the history and tradition of the United States,” Mr. Carbajal-Flores’s lawyers argued.
They pointed to several rulings interpreting the Supreme Court’s decision, including an appeals court ruling that declared stripping a man convicted of a nonviolent crime of his gun rights was unconstitutional.
The government opposed the motion, noting that neither of the cited decisions applied to illegal immigrants and that the defendant ignored other rulings that did, including a 2023 ruling that found that Second Amendment rights aren’t afforded to illegal immigrants. The government also offered examples of laws that prohibited certain categories of people from carrying guns, including “individuals who threatened the social order through their untrustworthy adherence to the rule of law.”
But Judge Coleman ruled for the defendant, finding that the laws against untrustworthy people contained exceptions for people who signed loyalty oaths and were deemed nonviolent.
“The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” she wrote.
“Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants. The court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”
An attorney representing Mr. Carbajal-Flores declined to comment. Federal prosecutors didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The ruling drew a range of reactions from people in the legal community.
“Supreme Court has said the ‘people’ are members of the political community,” Larry Keane, a lawyer for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote on X.
“Illegal aliens in US are not part of the political community and thus do not have 2A rights.”
Kostas Moros, a lawyer who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said that he also saw the issue that way.
“Bruen asks for a historical tradition of modern regulation that justifies the modern law, and one plainly exists here,” he wrote, noting that groups that have been disarmed in the past, including loyalists, have the common thread of being “outside of the political community.”
Matthew Larosiere, another lawyer, disagreed, writing in an analysis that all immigrants, even ones in the country illegally, are part of “the people” in the Second Amendment. His argument rested in part on the 14th Amendment, which applies to “any person within” the country.
“To find that illegal immigrants are outside of ’the people‘ protected by the Second Amendment, you must believe that the Framers were talking about a different ’people' in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments,” he wrote, adding later that he sided with the court in finding differences between historical laws such as the one that barred loyalists from owning guns and the law that applies to illegal immigrants.
Here is one for you. I was reading the Social Security guide last night. If you are a felon your social security payments are suspended. If you have been arrested and charged, your social security payments are suspended in some cases. Not convicted mind you, just arrested and charged.
60 years or so ago we were taught that felons lose many of their rights including the right to vote. Guess that was wrong?
The right to “self-defense” is an inalienable right that governments and states CANNOT abridge; thats the entire sticking point for the Left about the 1st and 2nd Amendments
It is a GOOD ruling-for individual rights-as well as placing the state where it should be
The ruling forces states to respond to
the iterests and concerns of their constituent. It does mean ILLEGAL ALIENS should be arrested and dealth with according to the law interms of deportation and or naturalization
Sharon. Sharon. Sharon. Making a mockery out of the judicial system as Democrats do.
Yes, “our” God given rights. U.S. citizen’s God given rights.
OUR Constitution only governs U.S. citizens not every person in the world.
The Forever Wars/Make Every Country a Democracy crowd would probably like to read it that way.
That is pretty much how I see it. See post #84.
If the Constitution was intended to protect God given rights universally it would mean protecting them for all human beings globally not just ours. That is certainly a ridiculous idea.
...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Since the word "citizen" is used in the beginning of section 1, it would seem that "person" was used purposely in the section I posted above.
It is a complicated legal question.
To your specific point my counter argument would be that the section you quote elucidates specific rights that shall not be abridged but does not extend to the broad scope of rights that most citizens enjoy.
I say "most" because there are exceptions even for citizens such as the limitations on minors, those on felons, those with mental and/or physical disabilities etc.
In this case I would argue that illegal aliens, by virtue of their hostile presence in our jurisdiction, enjoy those basic rights enumerated above in the 14th A. but very little more. They are handicapped by a complete absence of legal standing to be in U.S. jurisdiction at all.
I know there is legal precedent for legal aliens to purchase and possess firearms but I am not aware that such exists in regard to illegal aliens. There may be.
They are entitled to the equal protection of the law but the question is does the law allow the possession of a firearm by someone who violated the sanctity of our jurisdiction in the first place? Someone whose very presence is a direct violation of the boundaries of said jurisdiction?
It's sort of a "Starship Troops" kind of a thing. Citizen vs. civilian.
Yes indeed.
not really. Right to defend ones self is inherent as a God created human. Some don’t have a constitution to protect those but they don’t need a constitution to protect them. It just might be more difficult depending on the despot or which form of government the person is living under. Anyway my state actually has a stronger constitutional guarantee.
Of course everyone in the world has the right.
The U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens and those in our jurisdiction legally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.